AMD Radeon 760M vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 760M and AMD Radeon RX 6400 are two very different approaches to entry-level graphics, and benchmark data shows they trade blows depending on the workload. The RX 6400 is a dedicated discrete card that wins the majority of tests, while the 760M is an integrated GPU that dominates in specific modern APIs and 2D tasks. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the RX 6400 holding a razor-thin 0.3% advantage, placing both at the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic result in the data is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the AMD Radeon 760M scores 400 versus the RX 6400’s 176. This is a 127.3% victory for the integrated part, a massive swing that highlights how well the 760M’s RDNA 3.0 architecture handles modern DirectX 12 workloads. The 760M also shines in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, posting 30,336 points against the RX 6400’s 16,372, an 85.3% lead. These two wins suggest that in current-generation gaming APIs, the 760M is not just competitive but decisively faster.

The RX 6400, however, flexes its muscle across the older DirectX and compute-oriented tests. The largest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6400 scores 32,011 versus the 760M’s 20,255, a 36.7% advantage. In PassMark’s DirectX 9 test, the RX 6400 leads with 93 points to 65, a 30.1% gap. The DirectX 10 test shows an even bigger percentage difference, with the RX 6400 at 54 points versus the 760M’s 19, a 64.8% swing. The RX 6400 also wins in DirectX 11 (70 vs 52, a 25.7% lead) and DirectX 12 (30 vs 25, a 16.7% lead), though the DirectX 12 margin is much narrower than the 760M’s Steel Nomad blowout.

In the overall PassMark G3D test, which aggregates many workloads, the RX 6400 takes a clear win: 7,673 points versus 5,310, a 30.8% advantage. This is the most comprehensive performance indicator, and it confirms that the discrete card is generally faster for traditional rasterization. The 760M claws back a win in PassMark G2D, scoring 890 versus 722, a 23.3% lead, indicating superior 2D desktop performance. The final test, PassMark GPU Compute, is essentially a tie, with the 760M edging out the RX 6400 by just 1% (2,840 vs 2,812). Overall, the RX 6400 wins 6 of the 10 head-to-head tests, while the 760M takes 4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 760M is the clear winner in scenarios that leverage modern graphics APIs and low-level access. Its 127.3% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 85.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan show that it is built for the future, handling DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan titles with far greater efficiency than the older RDNA 2.0 part. Its 23.3% victory in PassMark G2D also makes it the better choice for desktop productivity, video playback, and any workload that stresses 2D rendering. For users on a system with fast shared memory, the 760M’s performance in these specific areas is surprisingly strong.

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the dominant force in legacy API compatibility and raw compute throughput. Its 36.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the stronger option for OpenCL-accelerated applications like video encoding or certain scientific workloads. The RX 6400 also sweeps the older DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests, making it far more capable for running older game libraries or software that has not been updated for modern APIs. Its 30.8% lead in PassMark G3D is the most telling, showing that for the broad average of 3D gaming and rendering tasks, the dedicated card with its own memory and higher pixel and texture rates is the more reliable performer. The RX 6400’s wins in DirectX 12 (16.7%) and compute (near-tie) round out a profile that favors traditional discrete graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 6,001, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon 760M’s average of 6,019. The 760M's average is actually higher numerically, but the deltaPct in the rival data shows the RX 6400 as the baseline.

Q: How do they compare in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M wins decisively, scoring 400 points versus the RX 6400’s 176. This represents a 127.3% performance advantage for the 760M in this modern DirectX 12 benchmark.

Q: Which GPU is better for older DirectX games?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is significantly better for older DirectX titles. It wins the DirectX 9 test by 30.1%, the DirectX 10 test by 64.8%, and the DirectX 11 test by 25.7%.

Q: What is the difference in PassMark G3D scores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 7,673 in PassMark G3D, while the AMD Radeon 760M scores 5,310. The RX 6400 holds a 30.8% lead in this comprehensive 3D graphics test.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon 760M competitive in compute workloads?

A: It is competitive in PassMark GPU Compute, where it scores 2,840 versus the RX 6400’s 2,812, a 1% lead for the 760M. However, in Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6400 is far ahead with a 36.7% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s, which is much higher than the AMD Radeon 760M’s 41.58 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their memory architecture. The AMD Radeon 760M uses System Shared memory, meaning its size, type, and bus width are all "System Shared," and its bandwidth is "System Dependent." In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a core distinction, as the RX 6400 does not rely on system RAM.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz, while the RX 6400 has a much higher base clock of 1923 MHz and a lower boost clock of 2321 MHz, with a game clock of 2039 MHz. The memory clock for the RX 6400 is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), whereas the 760M’s memory clock is listed as "System Shared."

The compute units differ in count and throughput. The 760M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This leads to different fill rates: the 760M has a texture rate of 83.17 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 41.58 GPixel/s, while the RX 6400 has a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s. FP32 performance is higher on the 760M at 5.323 TFLOPS versus the RX 6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS, but the RX 6400 doubles its FP16 output to 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), while the 760M maintains a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specs are polar opposites. The 760M is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and a slot width of "IGP," while the RX 6400 is a single-slot card with a 53 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface also differs: the 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" for the 760M, while the RX 6400 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 760M is built on the Phoenix chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture, part of the Navi III IGP generation. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The RX 6400, in contrast, uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 24 chip, belonging to the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. It is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, giving a much lower transistor density of 50.5M per mm².

The ray tracing cores also differ, with the 760M featuring 8 RT cores and the RX 6400 featuring 12 RT cores. The 760M’s predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the RX 6400’s predecessor is Navi and its successor is Navi III. The release dates are separated by about two years, with the RX 6400 launching on 2022-01-18 and the 760M launching on 2024-01-30. The RX 6400 is marked as end-of-life, while the 760M is still in active production. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6400 carries a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the 760M has no listed launch MSRP.